Mental Illness and your right to bear arms

A doctor will be allowed to pronounce you mentally unfit to own a gun. Thereby denying you the right to bear arms.

This is not true. Doctors are only being encouraged to report patients they feel are a threat.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement
authorities.

The following is the one that is really concerning...

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states
from making information available to the background check system.

It's hard to tell because it's so vague, but this could potentially be a significant threat to privacy. It sounds like they want to bypass HIPPA to
research your medical records for any signs of mental illness for background checks. At that point, they can make a subjective determination based on
what they find while digging through your medical history.

In both cases, these actions will tend to:

1) Make doctors trigger-happy on reporting anything that might be considered dangerous, for fear a patient might do something bad in the future and
they want their hands clean.

2) Make Patients stop being honest with their doctors for fear of them reporting every little thing they say. Dream therapy may be dead as a result

To me, these are counterproductive to the claimed intent of the actions.

You bring up a good point here. The vagueness of the wording in these actions is left for a lot of interpretation and I think that was done on purpose
thereby sucking up as much power as the government can with just a few simple words. The government has already made it so that the public fears the
police force hired to protect them, now they want to make it so that they fear the doctors hired to save their lives. This is just more in a long line
of fears designed to make it so that the public fears everyone. How can the populous rise up if no one trusts each other?

OK if they can make all these things, why do they always default to the guns?

im sure there is something, why almost all modern serial killers are going for guns instead of higher collateral damage like a bomb?

Simple, its easy to obtain, anywhere, by anyone, anytime.

Incorrect, on a number of points. First of all, most "serial killers" do NOT use guns as you suggest. Some do, but many tend to use
knives, strangulation, occasionally poison, etc. You are confusing "serial killers" with "mass murderers." There is a big
difference. Go look up the differing definitions and profiles and you'll easily see what I mean. in short, "mass murderers" tend to do all their
killing in one "spree" like columbine, or sandy hook. On the other hand "serial killers" tend to be slower, methodical, and plan out (or at least
spread out over time) their victims. Like The Son of Sam, Albert Fish, The Boston Strangler, etc....

Bombs are also relatively easy to make. However, that is, of course, not as easy as acquiring a gun in most cases, as you suggest. I'll concede to
that point. But bombs are also less personal. And the "mass killer" is usually an angry type of person. Taking people out one-by-one is something
that someone angry and disillusioned is more likely to "enjoy." They could just as easily employ a knife or something else for this style of
killing.

Like bombs, I'm sure you're aware that simple firearms can be "manufactured" by amateurs, sometimes using household items. I can't link you to
instructions or describe this as per the rules of the site, but it's not hard to figure out. Even people in prisons have made firearms from
objects available to them-- that should tell you how "do-able" it really is.

The bottom line is that if someone is determined to kill, they are going to do it. Banning guns does not and will not keep you safer.

Note that many/most mass shootings take place in gun-restricted states/areas. Especially schools, where no one is supposed to have a gun. Note that
people do not attempt mass shootings in places where there are "good" people with guns. Up to and including the fancy private schools that people
like Obama send their kids to, with armed guards, etc. It is true that usually all it takes to stop a bad person with a gun, is a good
person with a gun. That's why people call the cops, when there's someone with a gun. It's just that usually, with the way the laws are in most
places, they're the only ones who are allowed to carry guns around with them.

Or as one of my favorite sayings goes-- "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." And this is generally true. What's so safe about that?

and that is the point, to make it look like your nuts to want a fire arm, of any kind ,
to hunt is to kill,
to target shoot is to have fun,
to defend ones self is an act of aggression.
Do you see how that could prevent any one from buy owning or having a fire arm ??
I do

What is wrong with doctors? They are experts whose testimony will stand up in the court of law. Who do you think should be declaring whether someone
is mentally sound and not a danger to him or herself and the community at large? Should that be the governments call? The persons mother? Their peers?
The community? Doctors are the professionals we trust with these judgements and recommendations. This is common sense at the bottom of it.

None of it makes any difference because it hasn't been enforced in the past.
It won't be enforced now. We urge every American, even the psychotics and violent criminals to arm themselves. This sells more guns and the gun
business is one of those business that profits no matter who wins. They are like our own little military industrial complex and I am sure someone has
warned us of the potential danger of that type organization becoming behemoths.

Who was that great speech by? Was it Eisenhower? Forgive my forgetting but I am old, soon to be gone, and hardly care if the world does not learn from
lessons past.

I can understand your feeling over this matter, and on most points, I can agree with you.

NOT ALL mentally unstable humans will become mass slaughterers, but the ones who do commit mass slaughtering is certainly not sane.

The issue is how we define 'mentally ill'. Would a General Practitioner ( doctor) suffice? Or at the least, a national board of inquiry independent of
the govt, made up of experienced pyschology experts, to determine if one who is on 'controlled substances' as well as the truly violent to be declared
dangerous individuals, the way the supreme court operates?

While we may identify that it is NOT the tool that kills, but the human, however, at the same time, we mankind will not want ANYONE who is
disagreeable to the rulers or political dissenters be labelled as 'mentally unstable' and denied of their rights.

Conspiracy theorists would fit right in - those who believed that 911 was an inside job as they believed it to be and that they will courageously
stand up to protect the 2nd amendment. It will be them that will be deemed as mentally unfit, if a GP came to know and then that guy, who is merely
only speaking up freely on their beliefs and honestly on the part of defending the 2nd amendment, get his arms revoked and justified through the media
as a nutcase.

That example is just to show how easy it is to deprive one of constitutional rights. It has happened in China, N Korea, Iran, and many other
dictatorships, to silence the rest. Is this the road USA, the beacon of Democracy and Human Rights, wants to go?

Fighting VIOLENCE by humans will be a great challenge. Our ancestors fought long and hard and had only small but significant success. It will be
tough, but we cannot say it is impossible, do nothing, or at worst, eliminate tools and foolishly think violence will then go away.

And MOST CRITICALLY, when one is declared mentally ill, it MUST NOT STOP there, but ensure through research, funding and affordable treatment, to help
that fellow citizen be mentally well again to rejoin society, so that NONE gets left behind.

What is wrong with doctors? They are experts whose testimony will stand up in the court of law. Who do you think should be declaring whether someone
is mentally sound and not a danger to him or herself and the community at large? Should that be the governments call? The persons mother? Their peers?
The community? Doctors are the professionals we trust with these judgements and recommendations. This is common sense at the bottom of it.

A jury of your peers after having been arrested and tried for committing a felony are the people who can take away your rights. Just because a doctor
can provide expert testimony in court doesn't mean we should give them the power to strip our rights. A doctor may be biased, he may have graduated
from some quack medical school. How would you feel if the doctor who said you are unfit to own a gun was someone like Doctor Nick from the Simpsons?
Now I know this is an extreme example, but trusting one person's opinion on a matter no matter how qualified they are to make it is a bad road to
follow.

A doctor is hired to help you get well when you are sick or help you heal when you are hurt. Their job mandate does not include restricting rights
from Americans because the person they are treating may or may not be a threat to others.

But since we agree that not all mentally ill people should be called unfit then where do you draw the line? Make it a judgment call? Well judgments
differ from person to person. So one doctor can say that you are mentally unfit while another may say you are just fine. Which doctor is right? I'm
sure the government would love to side with the first one to take you guns away.

Like iwilliam pointed out earlier, even when you get a second or third opinion on a diagnosis a doctor may go into the interview with bias in their
mind after having reading your records.

In the end while letting some dangerous people own guns (until they physically become a threat to others by committing a dangerous crime) may result
in deaths when they finally snap, its is only the sure fire way to keep the guns out of dangerous people. Afterall what is to prevent a mentally unfit
person from just lying about his symptoms so that he isn't deemed unfit to own a gun? Yet the honest person who just wants to defend themselves from
the first person gets denied the right to own a gun because they told the truth to a doctor/psychiatrist.

What is wrong with doctors? They are experts whose testimony will stand up in the court of law. Who do you think should be declaring whether someone
is mentally sound and not a danger to him or herself and the community at large? Should that be the governments call? The persons mother? Their peers?
The community? Doctors are the professionals we trust with these judgements and recommendations. This is common sense at the bottom of it.

It depends on which doctors you mean, and in which situations. To say that "doctors should alert when a patient is mentally ill and/or owning a gun,"
is pretty vague, and theoretically could include Primary Care / Medical doctors.

The fact of the matter is that medical doctors are simply NOT professionals when it comes to mental illness and they would not be
allowed to testify to a person's mental health in a court of law, as you imply.

Actually, if you're taking something like Adderall or Ritalin or Concerta for your ADD, then you are already not allowed to own a
gun!

There are already laws on the books stating that if you are taking a "controlled substance" you can not have a gun. Since these increasingly
commonly-prescribed medications are considered "controlled substances" this would mean you, and anyone like you.

Please furnish a reference to any FEDERAL laws that substantiate your claim.
If you're referring to the ATF 4373 form, that only applies to purchasing a gun from a dealer.
If you're referring to local laws, then so be it - I'm not interested in a reference.
I am not aware of any Federal laws that meet your criterion.

Such hypocrisy from gun owners...always love to point out the "not to be infringed" part..telling the world the government cannot stop anyone from
owning a gun or instill rules on gun ownership.

Yet they are fine when felons and crazy people have their rights "INFRINGED" upon. If you are to follow your own BS..then you should be angry that
these people are having their right to own guns being infringed upon.

Of course I am against these fools owning a gun but I am just pointing out your own propaganda about that no one can stop anyone from owning guns on
America..you know the one you love to point out "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

If you want to own a gun in order to prevent a government tyranny, you are paranoid and hence mentally ill and hence unfit to own a gun, any gun.

The only sane reasons for wanting to own a gun are personal safety and (duck) hunting. Since you don't need semi-autos for them, no one can have a
semi-auto.

Of course, Obama believes in the second amendment.

ETA: So here is the modus operandi to get the guns. First identify those with semi-autos. When any of them can be taken in for questioning for any
reason whatsoever (including as witness to something), send them for a psychiatric evaluation. Get an evaluation of mentally ill and unfit
to own a firearm determination from the government psychiatrist and confiscate his/her guns. Of course, they don't have to do it for each and
everyone. Only a small sample and the rest will get the message. If they government has any semi-auto buy back options, people will be queueing up to
surrender their semi-autos, so that they can keep the others.

Originally posted by Observor
If you want to own a gun in order to prevent a government tyranny, you are paranoid and hence mentally ill and hence unfit to own a gun, any gun.

And this is really the only reason weapons in the hands of the people is protected under the 2nd amendment.....the only reason its mentioned.

For those that may not know, durring the social purges in the USSR after WWII "mental illness" sent a good many millions to the gulags. It was a
certain type of "mental illness" which is protected in the constitution of the United States....called disagreeing with offical state and party
positions. We have all that, in its many forms, covered here as protected under constitutional amendments, in our national charter.

Modern libs have been well indoctrinated in the Russian/Soviet model. On the other hand many republicans and dems have just been dumbed down enough to
think that the 2nd amendment is a "bubba" hunting and target shooting thingy.....and are thus unsophisticated political fools.

Originally posted by Observor
If you want to own a gun in order to prevent a government tyranny, you are paranoid and hence mentally ill and hence unfit to own a gun, any gun.

The only sane reasons for wanting to own a gun are personal safety and (duck) hunting. Since you don't need semi-autos for them, no one can have a
semi-auto.

Of course, Obama believes in the second amendment.

ETA: So here is the modus operandi to get the guns. First identify those with semi-autos. When any of them can be taken in for questioning for any
reason whatsoever (including as witness to something), send them for a psychiatric evaluation. Get an evaluation of mentally ill and unfit
to own a firearm determination from the government psychiatrist and confiscate his/her guns. Of course, they don't have to do it for each and
everyone. Only a small sample and the rest will get the message. If they government has any semi-auto buy back options, people will be queueing up to
surrender their semi-autos, so that they can keep the others.

edit on 24-1-2013 by Observor because: (no reason given)

This is one of the dumbest things I've read in a while on so many levels.

First of all, if what you say is true (which it's not-- about people who feel the need to protect against tyranny being mentally ill) then that would
make the framers of our constitution ill. I wouldn't expect someone brainwashed and programmed to be subservient to a monarchy to understand this, so
i guess you're to be forgiven for it. As the other member points out, they used "mental illness" as an excuse to single out dissenters in the
communist countries. It's a very old tactic.

Second, you don't need a "semi auto" for personal protection? OR hunting? Do you even have any clue what a "semi auto" is? And if you do
(doubtful from your comment) please do explain why you wouldn't need one for either activity? When you're finished I'll let you know why you
would.

And why mention "(duck) hunting"? This one's not all that important, but I'm curious at this point. Hunting a deer isn't sane? Are you one of
those easily-emotionally-manipulatable people who thinks hunting killing one type of animal (birds) is acceptable, while killing fuzzy cute mammals is
evil? Or were you just trying to give an example? Just curious. And maybe trying to get a gauge for your...er... mental state.

That last paragraph really wins it (the stupid contest, that is... first prize) and proves that not only are you pro-tyranny (hence invalidating your
first point) but shows that you know absolutely nothing of rights in the US, and further proving why foreigners (and ignorant whelps,
for that matter) should not be taken seriously in discussions like this. The govt does not have the right to subject people to psych testing at their
will. Only in very select situations. You have to be trying to plea insanity, or otherwise have your sanity questioned for a valid reason-- they're
usually reluctant to do this to the offender in a criminal case, as being proven "insane" might give the defense leeway to get that person out of a
lengthy jail sentence. Further, they have no right to make a "witness" see a shrink. So really, all that verbiage did nothing but show what a
good little comrade you are, cheerleading for the state, and reduced rights.

You all are missing the ESSENTIAL point here.....
The reasoning is to put more people who have to approve of your ownership between you and your GOD GIVEN rights......
There is NO HIGHER AUTHORITY PERIOD!
What you submit to is YOUR own foolishness....!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.